Learning to Rank in the Age of Muppets: Effectiveness–Efficiency Tradeoffs in Multi-Stage Ranking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that rerankers built on pretrained transformer models such as BERT have dramatically improved retrieval effectiveness in many tasks. However, these gains have come at substantial costs in terms of efficiency, as noted by many researchers. In this work, we show that it is possible to retain the benefits of transformer-based rerankers in a multi-stage reranking pipeline by first using feature-based learning-to-rank techniques to reduce the number of candidate documents under consideration without adversely affecting their quality in terms of recall. Applied to the MS MARCO passage and document ranking tasks, we are able to achieve the same level of effectiveness, but with up to 18 increase in efficiency. Furthermore, our techniques are orthogonal to other methods focused on accelerating transformer inference, and thus can be combined for even greater efficiency gains. A higher-level message from our work is that, even though pretrained transformers dominate the modern IR landscape, there are still important roles for "traditional" LTR techniques, and that we should not forget history.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".